Donald J. Trump (23:09)

The end of the year?

Matt Walsh (23:15)

What's behind all of that?

Donald J. Trump (23:19)

Nothing nefarious, apparently, but they're checking it all out. I think it's just one. There's a lot of drones authorized.

Matt Walsh (23:28)

We see.

Donald J. Trump (23:29)

I think one started and they all got. Everybody wanted to get in the deal, but we're following closely. So far, no sense of a danger.

Matt Walsh (23:39)

Will you speak to Prime Minister Netanyahu.

Donald J. Trump (23:41)

About a ceasefire deal in the next month? I've spoken to him. I'll just speak again. When did you last speak?

Matt Walsh (23:48)

Okay, so he says nothing nefarious, apparently. Apparently he's doing a lot of work there. Not exactly instilling confidence. Once again, nothing nefarious, apparently. And the problem is that the official explanations don't really comport with some of what we're seeing. For example, the Express yesterday had footage taken by a passenger on a plane over what seemed. What they think is Detroit. It was on its way into Newark, but over in Detroit. And this passenger saw these kind of glowing orbs in the sky. This was 10 or 12,000ft in the air above the clouds. And let's take a look at that. So there are the orbs. You can see the glowing orb, like vehicles. This is an altitude well above where a commercially available drone could fly. And. All right, that's good. That's enough of that. And there have been a lot of sightings like this, hundreds, as I said, across the country, for several days now. And Pentagon and White House say it's nothing. They don't know what it is, but it's nothing. They're sure of that. Many other theories have been floated. Some have said that these are drones or aircraft from some kind of foreign adversarial power. Chinese spy drones. I just read an article floating that as a possibility. I find that hard to believe because the whole point. And what do I know? But the whole point of a spy drone, I would think, is that it's not supposed to be detected. But these things are lit up, glowing like the Fourth of July. I don't think your enemies are trying to put on a light show for you. So enemy spy drones that thousands of people can see and that attract hundreds of headlines. There seems to be a concept problem. This is just not it's not how that's supposed to go, so I find that hard to believe. The other possibility is that these crafts are part of some US Government operation. I find that explanation kind of unsatisfying. What would be the point? I mean, a common variation of this theory, or, you know, that you've probably heard, is that maybe the government's looking for something. And there's stories, a lost nuke, lost radioactive materials. Of course, there's no evidence of that. And once the sightings spread out across the east coast, it becomes even less satisfying. What are they looking for? 15,000ft above Detroit? You know, and of course, you always get the people who say, well, this is a diversion tactic. They're trying to distract us. That's what this is all about. But as I always say to that, there will be no reason for the government to do anything so elaborate to distract us. They don't need to conduct some convoluted operation with thousands of drones across the east coast to distract us. We are already distracted all the time. Constantly. You're distracted right now, listening to me. Okay? Everybody is always. So that's why I always get a kick out of this. They had to do all this to distract us. They could just point to a squirrel over there. We actually had a two day news cycle about a squirrel. So anything will distract it. They could, I don't know, make Taylor Swift break up with Travis Kelsey. That would distract the American public way, way more than 10,000 drones ever could. So I find a lot of the standard explanations unsatisfactory. Which leaves us with the only remaining plausible answer, which is that, yes, these are aliens. You know, Sorry, I know you expected me to say that. I know that I'm not surprising you. I know as soon as you saw this, if you're a fan of the show, as soon as you saw the drone thing, you're like, oh, Matt's gonna say it's aliens. Well, yeah, it's. Cause that's what they are. I don't know what to tell you. So I can't surprise you. Cause in order to surprise you, I have to be wrong. And that would be the most surprising thing for me to be wrong. But I need to stick with my boring habit of being right, which means I have to say these are aliens. You know, one important fact here is that many of the initial New Jersey drone sightings were over the ocean or of what appeared to be craft coming off of the ocean. This is a common theme with UFO sightings. They're often seen coming out of or Back into, seemingly, the ocean. What's the significance of that? Well, I don't know. But I do know that the deep ocean is the last place on Earth that is mostly uncharted and mostly unexplored. The deepest parts of the ocean are less accessible to us than the moon. And meanwhile, people often ask, well, if aliens are coming here, where are they going? Are they just coming and flying around a little bit and then leaving a minute later? That just seems like a. That's a long way to go to just fly around and leave. Doesn't make a lot of sense. And you're right, it doesn't. So what if they're coming here and actually staying? What if they are establishing alien bases under the water? I mean, that would be one way to explain this. That's one explanation. Is it the best way to explain it? Depends on what you mean by best. If by best answer, you mean most exciting, most interesting, most fun, then yes, it's the best answer. The best answer is it's aliens coming out of their alien bases in the ocean. That's the best answer. If that. Now, if by best answer you mean most plausible, well, then stop being a bummer. Okay? It's. You have your drone theory, I have mine. Nobody knows. So when it comes to this, you just gotta go with the most fun possible answer. That's my version of Occam's razor, okay? That's my little twist on it. Only when it comes to mysterious things in the sky, only then will I say that I will choose the most fun possible explanation. And I'm doing the same here. I gotta stick by my guns on this. I want to mention this story, too. This is from a few days ago at this point, and I missed it while I was away, which, by the way, a lot of you in the audience were upset that I disappeared without explanation. And I also disappeared right when this drone stuff was going on. So you might have thought I'm on some kind of mission related to the drones, but that was not the case. Actually, I left because of my. We had a surprise party for my dad's 70th birthday. And the problem is my dad listens to the show, so I couldn't tell you guys that I was taking off a few days because then he'd be suspicious. So for the sake of preserving the surprise, had to spring this on you without notice. These are the moral quandaries that one faces while attempting to pull off a surprise party. But anyway, which we did pull off, by the way. He was surprised. So this happened Late last week, and I have to say a few things about it. You've probably already seen the clip. We'll play it anyway. This is Crystal Mangum, who's the accuser in the Duke lacrosse case, admitting in a podcast last week that she made up that rape claim almost 20 years ago. Now, I think it was in 2006. So almost 20 years ago, it was all made up and she finally admitted it. Let's watch the clip.

Crystal Mangum (31:43)

And I testified falsely against them by saying that they raped me when they didn't, and that was wrong. And I betrayed the trust of a lot of other people who believed in me and made up a story that wasn't true because I wanted validation from people and not from God, and I hope that they can forgive me.

Matt Walsh (32:20)

So she made it all up. We already knew that she made it up. Any honest and intelligent person knew that knew it at the time. It was always obviously a lie. And now she's admitting to it 20 years later, apologizing, hopes that they can forgive her. All she did was completely ruin the lives of three young men. All she did was have these young men or try to have them thrown in prison for decades. All she did was, you know, tear the country apart over a lie that she made up. And now she wants to be forgiven. Forgiven with zero accountability, zero consequences, zero punishment. It's just obscene. Like. And imagine the reverse of this. Okay, imagine. Imagine a man raped a woman and got away with it, and then 20 years later said, yes, I raped her. I'm sorry, that was wrong. I hope she can forgive me. And then imagine that was the end of it. No legal repercussions, no prison time, just an oops, sorry about that, I screwed up, and that's it. The apology almost makes it worse at that point because there's no accountability. It almost makes it worse because it just makes the lack of consequence all the more glaring and ghastly. And this comparison works because, as I've said many times, falsely accusing someone of rape is just as evil as rape itself. These are two sides of the same coin. Essentially, the false rape accusation is basically the female version of rape. An evil pervert man who gets off on imposing himself on women becomes a rapist. An evil pervert woman who gets off on imposing herself on men often becomes a false rape accuser. And the trauma suffered by the rape victim and the false rape accusation victim is very similar. Equally severe, equally devastating. And of course, when you say things like that, people will accuse you of downplaying the severity of rape. But if you interpret it that way, it's just because this is not downplaying the severity of rape. You are downplaying the severity of falsely accusing someone. Okay, the point here is not to diminish the severity of rape, but to take this other thing and make a point about how significant that is, that this is on the same level. We're not bringing this down a level. It's this other thing. We're bringing it up, making sure that it's on the correct level. We're bringing it up a level in terms of explaining the severity of it. I mean, when we say ruin the life of someone, that is what you are doing. You are ruining their life. And those guys who are accused, I don't know where they are today. Hopefully they've been able to pick up the broken pieces and build some kind of life. Your life isn't literally over. You just continue living, hopefully. But you have just sent their life careening off on a new course that it shouldn't be on. And you've done this all with your false accusation. And in the meantime, and we can't understate the point that you are trying to put them in prison, you're trying to have them locked up in prison on false pretenses. So it's also kind of a form of kidnapping. I mean, that's what falsely imprisoning someone is, and that's what you're trying to do. You're trying to use the legal system to do it because you can't do it yourself, but that is what you're trying to do. Now, Crystal Mangum, I believe, is already in prison for second degree murder. She, I think she stabbed her and killed her boyfriend, I believe, because this is just a wonderful person all around. But she's set to be released soon and she should now be looking at another 20 years in prison at least. Okay, you want, I mean, forgiveness? The guys that she victimized, I don't know if they, I think if I was in their shoes, I'd have a very hard time forgiving her. I think obviously it'd be a very hard time whether I could actually forgive her or not, I don't know. And I don't know if they can't forgive her, I would totally understand that. It's not my place to forgive. It's not anyone's place. This is one of the things people don't understand about forgiveness. When you have someone who does something and then they go in public and say, oh, I, I'm asking for forgiveness. You know, the forgiveness from the public, even if we could grant it, is meaningless. We were not the ones who were harmed by this. We're not the victims. So our forgiveness means nothing. We actually can't forgive you. We aren't involved in this. The men that she victimized, they could choose to forgive her or not. But what I do know is that forgiveness can be in effect, is in effect a sort of one way street. In that way that a person chooses to forgive or they choose not to. But reconciliation, having any kind of real reconciliation, that is not a one way street. That on the part of the wronged person, it involves forgiveness on their end, on the part of the person who did the wrong thing, there must be accountability. You have to be willing to suffer the consequences and accept the consequences of the terrible thing that you did. And by the way, if you're not, then you're not actually sorry. So your apology is not real. And in this case, there's no consequence, no legal consequence, which is just crazy. And all that does is encourage more of this kind of stuff in the future when someone could come out years after the fact and say, yeah, you know what, I made it up and there's no consequence at all. I find that, as I said, obscene is the best word I can think of for it. Daily Mail has this story. The San Francisco Department of Public Health has hired a consultant on weight stigma and weight neutrality. Despite the city in the midst of a battle against rampant homelessness, open air drug use and violent crime. Virgie Tovar, a self described anti waste based discrimination expert, describes herself as a prominent advocate for fat positivity and body acceptance, announced announcing her appointment on her Instagram. She called it an absolute dream come true. I'm unbelievably proud to serve the city I've called home for almost 20 years. In this way, Tovar wrote, this consultancy is an absolute dream come true. And it's my biggest hope and belief that weight neutrality will be the future of public health. Okay, so San Francisco has a million serious problems. The city's falling apart. Anyone who's been there recently, as I have been multiple times, unfortunately knows that this is no exaggeration. I mean, it's a filthy, disgusting place. I can't imagine ever living there. If I was offered a job that pays 10 times more my current salary, but I had to live in San Francisco, I wouldn't take it. I wouldn't even be tempted to take it. That's how revolting San Francisco is. San Francisco is so bad that the fact that there are gay men Walking around fully naked in the city is actually not even the worst thing about it. About the city. It's top five for sure. I mean, it's probably three or four on the list, but it has so many problems that somehow there are things even worse than exhibitionist weirdos walking around. And in spite of all that, the city is taking the time to focus on weight stigma with their weight stigma czar, Virgie Tovar. And by the way, here she is. This is a video making the rounds on X, but here she is introducing herself. Let's watch this.

Virgie Tovar (40:38)

Hi, my name is Virgie Tovar, and I'm the author of youf have the Right to Remain Fat, as well as a few other books on fat positivity and body excitement acceptance. When I think about what people might be surprised by or what you wouldn't think of when you think of eating disorders, I immediately think of being a kid. I was a kid in a larger body, a teen in a larger body, and also I'm an adult in a larger body. And the message I always got from my doctor was, shrink your body by any means necessary. And it really felt like there was a sense of a don't ask, don't tell. So. Because I truly, truly, truly believed. Right. And this is where I think the surprise comes in. I really believed that this was about my health. I really believed that my doctor was right.

Matt Walsh (41:22)

What I think of, what you think of when you think of eating disorders. I think of being a kid as a sentence that she just said. There a couple of things here. Number one. Yeah, you should. You should make yourself smaller. By any means necessary. That is correct. There's nothing sinister about that. By any means necessary, you should make yourself smaller. If that's the message you get from doctors, that's the correct message. That doesn't mean that you should be bulimic or anorexic, because those methods aren't necessary to lose weight. They're also not recommended from a health perspective, obviously. But the point is they aren't necessary. So if you're hearing the message that you should lose weight by any means necessary, that is not an advocacy for eating disorders. The necessary means for losing weight is eating less and moving more. Okay? That is what is necessary. That is the necessary. Those are the necessary means. And yes, that is what you should do. And second, she says she's the author of a book called you'd have the right to remain fat, which, by the way, I know I said recently that gag gifts are lame, but there are exceptions to Every rule. And it would be very funny to give that book to somebody as a gag gift. Wrap the book, hand it to them, tell them you saw this book on the shelf and thought of them immediately, and you thought that they'd find it inspiring. Now, important disclaimer here. This is a gag gift only for men. This is you as a man. Give it to a male friend or a male family member who has a good sense of humor. I would not give this as a gag gift to a female. Okay. Don't give it to your wife as a gag gift. That would be a very good way to ruin Christmas. A funny thing for me to think about you doing that. But anyway, I looked up the book on Amazon. Here's the description, in case you're curious. It says, growing up as a fat girl, Virgil Tovar believed that her body was something to be fixed. But after two decades of dieting and constant guilt, she was over it and gave herself the freedom to trust her own body again. Just a side note, and you always hear this from morbidly obese people that I've tried dieting for two decades. No, you haven't. Okay. Two decades of dieting and you look like that. Literally impossible. Literally impossible. To diet for two decades and end up looking like that again, it breaks the laws of physics. It cannot be done now. I mean. Well, I guess it depends what you mean by dieting. You could just have a really, really bad diet. I mean, your idea of dieting could be insane. But like actual dieting, where you're cutting down the calories and again, you're moving more a calorie deficit. Two decades and you're morbidly obese. Impossible to do, cannot be done. So every time you hear this, I've tried dieting. I've tried everything. No, you haven't. I've tried everything to lose weight. No, you haven't. Not only have you not tried everything, you haven't even tried the one single most obvious thing. And the only thing that, aside from drugs, will make you lose weight, which is to cut the calories and to move more. So you haven't tried it. You haven't tried everything. You haven't tried anything. Actually, you've tried nothing, basically. But there was also this line I liked. She says, tovar is hungry for a world where bodies are valued equally, food is free for moral judgment, and you can jiggle through life with respect. Jiggle through life with respect. Those are those words that were written and not to be funny. And of course, the whole premise here misses the Point intentionally, these fat acceptance people always go on about how all bodies should be valued equally, which, yes, true, if you mean that all people, regardless of their size, should have equal rights and moral dignity as human beings. That's true. But that's also exactly why you shouldn't be fat. If you value yourself and your body, you should not be doing something that destroys yourself and your body. Fat acceptance is no different than the idea of cancer acceptance. Imagine a movement that tells you to embrace and enjoy having cancer. Imagine a movement that says we shouldn't negatively judge people who do things that cause cancer. We should encourage them to keep doing it. You know, write a book called you have the right to die of cancer. Now, of course, this analogy doesn't actually work, because there can be a point with cancer when you do have to basically accept it. You know, if you're terminal, stage four cancer's untreatable, inoperable. Then at that point, you know, basically you should be in the acceptance stage. Although even then, it'd be perverse to insist that somebody love and embrace the cancer itself. It's a tragedy at this point, unavoidable. So hopefully you can find happiness and peace in spite of the cancer, but you don't find it in the cancer or through the cancer or because of the cancer. On the other hand, there is never a point with fatness where you should just accept it. It's never terminal. I mean, you can always become less fat as long as you're alive, which you won't be for very long if you insist on being morbidly obese. And that's really the point here. Natural disasters are becoming more frequent and devastating. From Maui fires to hurricane Helene, we're seeing entire towns wiped out in 24 hours with barely any warning. And what happens? People are left without basic resources, scrambling to survive. Now, I know you're thinking it won't happen here. Well, that's exactly what everyone thinks until they're in the middle of a catastrophe. Being prepared isn't just smart, it's essential. And that's where the wellness company's emergency kit comes in. These aren't your run of the mill first aid kits. We're talking about a personalized mini pharmacy right in your own home. No more relying on overworked doctors or understocked pharmacies with disaster strikes, bacterial infections, staph bite wounds, UTIs, strep throat respiratory illnesses. These kits have you covered. It's like having a doctor in your pocket, minus the liberal indoctrination from med school. Look, you keep a fire extinguisher handy, don't you? Well, consider this your medical fire extinguisher. It's not paranoia, it's preparedness. Here's how it works. Just fill out a form online, a pharmacist reviews it and boom, your kit arrives in two weeks. It even comes with a medical board approved guidebook. It's that simple. And right now when you go to urgentcarekit.com Walsh and use promo code Walsh, you'll save $60 plus get free shipping. That's urgentcarekit.com Walsh to save 60 bucks. This is preparedness simplified. Invest in your family's self managed insurance plan today. Urgent Care Kit USA Residents only at the Daily Wire when we say join us in the fight, these aren't empty words. These are real battles that affect the lives of every American every day. We took the Biden administration's unconstitutional vaccine mandate straight to the Supreme Court and we won. The groundbreaking documentary what Is a Woman Changed the national conversation forever. And a major part of that fight is now in the hands of the Supreme Court. Then we took on the box office with Amiracist and Americans showed up in record numbers, making it the number one documentary of the decade, despite Hollywood pretending it doesn't exist. At the Daily Wire, we fight the left and build the future. And we need you to stand with us. Every dollar you invest goes directly back into these battles. Join Daily Wire plus today or give the gift of Daily Wire plus this Christmas for 40% off. Head to DailyWire.com right now. Now let's get to our daily cancellation. You may have heard the phrase theater kid occupied government. It's an expression that in normal circumstances is not meant to be taken literally. It's been used in cases where, say, the Biden administration invites TikTok influencers to the White House or when Eric Swalwell starts crying in Congress because of a meme that depicts Donald Trump rescuing cats from Haitian migrants. These are situations in which Democrat politicians act like theater kids or when they promote influencers who seem like theater kids. But in general, no one is actually suggesting that theater kids are literally occupying the government and conducting its day to day operations. It's an expression. It's meant to parody Democrats in exaggerated terms, to highlight how absurd things become when they're in power. But by this point, we're all very familiar with the Democrats uncanny ability to turn absurd and exaggerated situations into reality. They're becoming impossible to parody. And as if to prove that point, a Democrat on the Supreme Court has just decided to embrace her Inner theater kid in the most literal sense. As you may have seen, Ketanji Brown Jackson had her debut on Broadway on Saturday night, appearing in the musical and Juliet, which apparently is a queer reimagining of Shakespeare's Romeo and Juliet. She plays a character called Queen Mab who according to a poster from the production, has she her pronouns and she appears in two scenes that were written specifically for her for a one night only performance. Here's some of the promo video that they released after her appearance. Watch.

Ketanji Brown Jackson (50:41)

Female empowerment. Sick.

Virgie Tovar (50:50)

Welcome to the first day of rehearsal.

Matt Walsh (50:53)

Thank you.

Ketanji Brown Jackson (50:53)

I'm so excited to be here. This has been a dream of mine.

Matt Walsh (50:57)

Tonight we have a very special guest, Supreme Court Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson. Now, just from the short clips that appear in the promo, you can already tell that she can't act. She actually managed to bungle one of the few lines she had when she gets interrupted by the crowds and just stops mid sentence. And other clips from her performance demonstrate that she can't really sing either. But before I subject you to that footage, I need to make the point that even if Kentanda Brown Jackson could act and sing, she still shouldn't have made the decision to appear in this play for several reasons. For one thing, it's completely unwatchable political propaganda. In particular, it's a full on embrace of every ridiculous tenet of gender ideology, including the idea that people can be non binary. That's notable because gender ideology is currently before the Supreme Court in the case pertaining to Tennessee's ban on child castration. During oral arguments in that case, Ketanja Brown Jackson compared Tennessee's ban to a prohibition against interracial marriage, made it very clear that she's a partisan on this issue. And now she appears to be openly celebrating that fact in a play centered around these kinds of ideas, which should be disqualifying all on its own. Now, to give you some idea of what this new version of Romeo and Juliet is like, there's a character called May who apparently is Juliet's best friend and who identifies as non binary and uses he, she, they pronouns. Watch.

Justin David Sullivan (52:25)

I'm not a girl don't tell me what to believe I'm just trying to find a woman in me. Hi, I'm Justin David Sullivan. I use the pronouns he, she and they. And I play Juliet's best friend May, while I'm in between, May goes on a journey of self discovery, finds love and explores their gender identity.

Matt Walsh (52:53)

So just to restate, this is the play that a sitting justice on the US Supreme Court decided To participate in the justice who couldn't define the word woman during her confirmation hearing, saying that she's not a biologist, is now endorsing propaganda about gender that's written by activists on Broadway. But again, even if this play wasn't a piece of lazy activism, even if it were the best play on Broadway, there's still no justification for a Supreme Court justice to appear in it. I mean, at the same time, it's obvious why Ketja Brown Jackson decided to go through with this. As if you couldn't tell from all the praise and applause she received in that clip. She gave an interview with CBS where she explained her reasoning.

Ketanji Brown Jackson (53:31)

It's a story about female empowerment and, you know, women's ability to do what they want to do, to control their own destiny. I think it's a wonderful message and obviously very fun. Other justices actually have done somewhat similar things. I just also think it's very important to remind people that justices are human beings, that we have dreams and that we are public servants and we're not so detached from the people that we serve. I guess this moment reinforces for me that anything is possible. You know, I didn't let anything sort of hold me back or stop me. The obstacles that I would think were pretty obvious based on my background. And so I think the lesson is don't give up and don't be deterred.

Matt Walsh (54:32)

So there's a lot to think about here. But maybe the best part is when she says that she's appearing in this Broadway play with a scene that was written just for her because she wants to remind everyone that she's a public servant going out of her way to appear in a play so she can attract as much attention as possible and fulfill her childhood fantasy. But it's really for your benefit, peasant, so just shut up and clap as she breaks the glass ceiling or whatever. Then she goes on to say that it's shocking that she was able to achieve this lofty goal given her background and how all these obstacles were stacked against her. But here's the thing. No obstacles were stacked against her solely on account of her race and gender. She was admitted to a prestigious law school, then she became a Supreme Court justice after just one year of serving on an appellate court because Joe Biden needed to nominate a black woman. And now she's a Broadway actress because once again, she's getting preferential treatment instead of being assessed on merit. So the total lack of self awareness here and the all encompassing narcissism is almost as bad as her decision to appear in this play in the first place. This is not a woman who should be deciding cases at traffic court, much less the highest court in the country. But she says it's totally fine because other justices have kind of done similar things in the past. She was apparently thinking of this moment from Ruth Bader Ginsburg's career when she did a poor job of reciting some feminist propaganda at the opera one time.

Ketanji Brown Jackson (55:51)

Watch the best of the house of crack and talk have open but not empty minds. The best are willing to listen and learn. No surprise, then, that the most valorous.

Matt Walsh (56:09)

Crack and toppings have been women. Now the whole clip is even longer, but no one should have to be subjected to it. It goes without saying that, you know, this is not the kind of thing we want Supreme Court justices to emulate. It's just painful to watch. In the case of Ketanji Brown Jackson, some people have tried to defend this as a harmless if deeply cringy hobby. Maybe we should overlook this, they say, because after all, Scalia liked going to the opera or whatever. But even aside from the fact that attending the opera is nothing like what Jackson did, Scalia was also a skilled and competent jurist. Ketachi Brown Jackson is not. Her opinions are riddled with factual errors. For one thing, at one point, for example, she stated in an opinion that white doctors are significantly more likely to kill black babies than black doctors are. But she overlooked the fact that white doctors are typically better trained, so they tend to see babies of all races who are in critical condition, the worst cases. On top of that, Ketosha Brown Jackson also got the numbers completely wrong. She said that, according to a study, the survival rate for black infants who have black doctors was more than double their survival rate when they have white doctors. In reality, the study showed a difference of survival rates of less than 0.2%, which is essentially nothing, especially when you factor in the different levels of experience the doctors have. This wasn't some trivial error. This was contained in Jackson's dissent to the Supreme Court's landmark ruling that overturned affirmative action. Her reasoning for trying to uphold affirmative action was based on obvious lies, but she never apologized for that. She never demonstrated a hint of self reflection in this context or any other context. Instead, she's now feeding her ego on Broadway. But the time she spent practicing for her Broadway performance would have been better utilized reading and learning how to do the job she's been assigned. Of course, if she did that, then she wouldn't get to do a media tour to promote herself and her new book, which just came out a few months ago. Somehow Ketanji Brown Jackson secured a million dollar advance for that memoir even though nobody read it, and it fell off the New York Times bestseller list in like a month. Sales figures haven't been released. But as we all know, books written by famous leftists are a bit like Hunter Biden's paintings. They have no value, but strangely, someone is always willing to pay a lot of money for them. Now, I'm not suggesting that Ketanja Brown Jackson is getting money from some nefarious source. I have no idea. What I am suggesting is that Ketanja Brown Jackson has been given an awful lot of attention for someone as thoroughly unintelligent and mediocre and narcissistic as she is. And her latest turn as an actress on Broadway, a bad one, is just the most recent example of that. This is the, you know, the Hamilton phenomenon all over again. It's yet another occasion for rich New York elites to feel virtuous by applauding mediocrity in the name of social justice. And above all else, the reason this whole farce is so galling is that we used to expect just a certain amount of decorum and dignity and seriousness from people who hold important positions in government. And we should still expect that, or else we'll just never get it. And that is why Ketanji Brown Jackson and the queer themed Romeo and Juliet remake that she just appeared in are both today canceled. That'll do it for the show today. Thanks for watching. Thanks for listening. Talk to you tomorrow. Have a great day. Godspeed.